August 13, 2010

"But let me be clear: as a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan...

"This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable."

Look closely at what he said. It is actually unremarkable. Of course, there is freedom of religion in the United States and the idea of discriminating against a particular religion offends our fundamental values. But it is a separate question whether the plan to build a mosque is a good one that persons of good will should choose to pursue as they exercise the freedom they are most assuredly guaranteed. Did Obama say express an opinion about that?

185 comments:

I think the local government should decide this, and I think that government should try to do what the most citizens can deal with. Surely, some other locale can be found to placate everyone.

I think we all agree that it's a tacky thing to do. That aside, I don't see any moral qualms.

My favorite argument against it that I have heard goes like this: well, you know, Saudi Arabia and all these hard-line Islamic countries would never allow a Christian church or a synagogue to be built right up on some similar site.

To which I can only respond: Yes. No shit. That's what makes us so awesome and them so shitty. That's freedom.

Ground Zero is not "hallowed" ground. It is not sacred. It's a place where a horrible thing happened and as such it has more or less the same meaning (times 3000+) as the roadside memorial to the victim of a drunk driver, or if I want to make certain no one mistakes that remark for a lack of understanding of the *intent* of the attack, no more than the roadside memorial of the deputy that was murdered trying to apprehend someone.

Hallowed... what... are the souls of the people murdered there attached to that place? Maybe, if we're going to engage in magical thinking about it all of the rubble should have stayed as it was. What if some souls got hauled off? Maybe they should have been kept as relics at least until it was determined that they weren't legitimate sources of miracles.

If it's hallowed ground it belongs to a god.

If we're going to toss that word around like nothing at all, maybe we could think about what god it likely belongs to.

Oh, and did they finally decide NOT to make this bit of sacred soil into a place dedicated to world injustice and Western oppression? Now that was offensive. Let's put up a permanent display of all the reasons that we deserved what we got, because who can resist?

"The idea of discriminating against a particular religion offends our fundamental values."

Who's "our" white lady?

That's a joke. But, seriously, I'd like to see NewAge destroyed. It's proponents hounded like the criminals they are. It has brought so much misery - a misery so many choose to ignore, it's mind-boggling. Lives torn apart, fortunes lost, people (especially children) killed - it's all there, with a TV audience applauding. How such an evil and diabolical bit of kookiness ever got a foothold in American soil will be a story that will be told, and retold, in the future. I know it.

It will be the story of how the greatest nation on Earth lost it's way.

We should express our displeasure and make every attempt to negotiate a move.

But I'm sure that many Muslims have the same attitude about the mosque as Obama has about his health care bill: the people don't like it now, but later, when it has taken over completely, they'll love it.

New Age is soft and cuddly, Crack. Kinder and gentler than the sorts of robust religions that think they are right and that being right actually matters.

I know you don't do religion at all, and I'm not asking you to. I'm only attempting to explain the "why" as you claim to be "mind-boggled" over the fact that New Age is ignored and the human cost of New Age superstitions are ignored.

Now, actually, I don't think anyone is engaging in magical thinking about Ground Zero... they just use magical language. The pain of those who lost people on 9-11 is very real and persistent. But the effect of equating hurt and strong emotion to something sacrosanct or hallowed, not deliberately but without any thought for doing so, reflects a watering out of what used to mean something into comfortable platitudes.

It's important to be comfortable, so approved religion is quaint, mostly, and inclusive of everything it's possible to be inclusive of and doesn't demand much. And New Age fits that bill. Even people who think that it's all loonies consider them harmless loonies... particularly as they aren't telling anyone else that they're going to hell.

And New Age has even less orthodoxy than Wicca or anything else, so there is really and truly no one being so rude as to venture to tell anyone at all that they are wrong, no matter how many people die in a sweat lodge.

It's the ultimate in tolerance.

(Using the erroneous definition of "tolerance" that means "joyful acceptance and promotion.")

I will say that most of the speech seems almost like a lecture on appropriate Muslim behavior.

I tried to think of myself being on the receiving end and I think it would be annoying, but props to the president for making such a point of our commitment to the rights of people to believe whatever they want or have no faith at all.

Another example of ultimate in tolerance is AIDS. A body with AIDS is tolerant of every foreign body and bacteria, and doesn't do anything "unkind or not gentle" to discern the harmful ones and get them shut down.

It's not really subjective morality, though. (Love the AIDS analogy, BTW.) It's actually an extremely strict morality. It's extremely strict about what is acceptable and what is not acceptable and the intolerance towards ideas that do not conform is public and harsh.

Being intolerant of intolerance generally means carte blanche to hate anyone who has the wrong beliefs or ideas... anything that isn't the right sort of tolerant thinking can only be intolerant so...

An example of the ultimate in tolerance... someone will avow acceptance of all faiths and all ideas about the supernatural, and they will say, "What this person believes is True for *them*. What you believe is true for you." But I challenge anyone to respond to that bit of vacancy by attempting to explain that, if what I believe is not true for everyone, then what I believe is not true for me either, it is a *lie*.

Try it, and find out just how "subjective" this morality is. It's not subjective at all. It allows no other interpretations at all. It just has different rules than the old rules.

BHOII For in the end, we remain “one nation, under God, indivisible.” And we can only achieve “liberty and justice for all” if we live by that one rule at the heart of every religion, including Islam—that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

I call bullshit.

(And the Sharia believers in the audience are thinking "Way to go. Nice taqiyya there, Barack!")

"This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable."

Except it isn't. We are quite happy to look the other way about Intolerant Islam oppressing those of other religions outside the US while yammering endlessly about our "obligation to diversity" to accept Saudi government funds in the billions to build mosques and fund mullahs preaching the most intolerant Wahabbism here.

==============Good rant by Synova about all the New Age crap about violence+death somehow making a place "hallowed ground".We commemorate battlefields and build memorials to celebrity mass deaths as opposed to making a large local hospital where 203,000 people died in the last 80 years "hallowed soil".And it isn't just New Age babble - NYC Jews and Catholics delved deep into the religious glorification of mass victimhood at 9/11. From stupid micks seeing a I beam crosspiece as a sign from Jesus to Jews doing their tedious and boring and stupid droning of "names of the dead" while emotionally blackmailing everyone to stand at reverent attention at ceremony afterceremony - while the kaddish or whatever it is called by ritual name - was done.

seven machos said: "My favorite argument against it that I have heard goes like this: well, you know, Saudi Arabia and all these hard-line Islamic countries would never allow a Christian church or a synagogue to be built right up on some similar site.

To which I can only respond: Yes. No shit. That's what makes us so awesome and them so shitty. That's freedom."

I agree with you and we certainly should not aspire to lower our standards to their level, but don't you ever wonder why it is that so few Muslims in America ever make any statements condemning those restrictions in Saudi Arabia? Saudi money has poured into the USA for years, helping to build mosques, centers, schools, etc. Wouldn't it be something if some of those Muslims in America would reject the Saudi money in protest of the discrimination?

Our enemies respect no freedom of religion. Al Qaeda’s cause is not Islam – it is a gross distortion of Islam. These are not religious leaders – these are terrorists who murder innocent men, women and children. In fact, al Qaeda has killed more Muslims than people of any other religion – and that list of victims includes innocent Muslims who were killed on 9/11.

The answer: the mosque has nothing to do with Osama bin Laden any more than a Catholic church would represent Hitler or a Buddhist temple would represent Pol Pot, because none of the mass murders they committed had anything to do with the worship such buildongs are for.

Cedarford, After 9-11 the Lutheran denomination where I was attending was one of the only denominations of any size or consequence in the US that did not send a denominational representative to any of the "inter-faith" events. They caught some heat for that but it's a good principle to stand on. Not to deny others their observances or to be rude about them (if I might throw a hint your direction), but how much meaning can something have when the people attending think it's a bunch of bull sh*t? It's like having a baby baptized with an Assemblies of God congregation as witnesses. (Our AF chaplain managed something almost exactly like this at Clark and it was *horrifying*.)

Ground Zero is not "hallowed" ground. It is not sacred. It's a place where a horrible thing happened and as such it has more or less the same meaning (times 3000+) ... [as] the roadside memorial of the deputy that was murdered trying to apprehend someone.

Somebody was uninfluenced by the most famous Presidential address in our Nation's history. Regarding the interment of 7500 Americans near the place they were killed by their enemy, Abraham Lincoln said:

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract.

Lands where the enemy has killed our fellow Americans is hallowed by their corpses.

"You really think that either of the Bushes would have advocated against this mosque?"

No, I don't.

W made an effort to hammer the notion home that we weren't at war with Islam. If his intelligence people didn't have any flags on the fellow wanting to fund the mosque or flags on his associates I wouldn't be surprised if he actually promoted it in order to make a strong statement about our friends and our enemies and who is who.

Without evidence, I admit, I think that a good deal of the outrage over this is from people who suddenly find themselves in the novel position of being allowed to be anti-Muslim. That may be unfair, however.

It was also my Mo. Synod pastor who denounced Falwell from the pulpit for his remarks after 9-11.

People tend to think that a conservative church must mean certain things as some sort of pre-set package deal. We haven't attended for many years but I approve very much of a church that doesn't ignore the parts of the bible they don't like and works very hard not to just make sh*t up even if it means some questions don't have answers.

A major strategy of the Palestinians in their goal of ultimately taking over all of Israel is to deny Jewish and Christian ties to the land. That's why they hold on to the Temple Mount and destroy artifacts. It is why they burned down Joseph's Tomb and it is why they are now targeting Rachel's Tomb calling it the Bilal Bin Rabah Mosque, and why they have built the al-Hanaqa Mosque adjacent to the Church of the Holy Sepulcher(and the latrine for the mosque on the roof of the church)

Building a Mosque at Ground Zero is all about denying America's ties to the Ground Zero site. It is a flag of conquest placed on a battle site by a political theocracy that has waged war against the non-muslim world since the seventh century.

Anyone that suggests we have to act like ourselves, at all times, under any circumstances - when we are at war - is loopy. Get it through your heads: there are people trying to kill and/or defeat us. Al Qaeda does it the hard way, these Mosque people are trying the "soft and cuddly" route - neither should be allowed to succeed. This is OUR country, and this slight step-by-step encroachment on us, and our values, will continue until we decide to stop it.

When I'm in a fight, I don't act like myself, I act like a man who wants wants others to die, period. War is not to be left to people who don't want to fight, here, there, and everywhere. All this illegal immigrant shit, the mosque, etc., is all the result of others suspecting (rightly) this has become a nation of "soft and cuddly" pussies who are too confused by multiculturalism to defend themselves.

Well, nobody's going to lose this but us, so native born Americans had better consider keeping it ours to be a superior priority than how doing so looks to outsiders or tourists.

Peter, what did you want me to say about Newt? I didn't even read the thread or link pretty much just like I didn't read the one about Tiger Woods. Not that I don't occasionally wander down one of those puerile paths (I'm sure I commented on Tiger's problems previously) but I really do think they get boring fast and as I've no particular investment in Newt I skipped it.

What is there to say?

Is the validity of what someone says dependent on the moral authority of the speaker in order to be true?

No.

Was the remark about cars disgusting?

Yes.

Newt got on some moral bandwagon recently (which I've forgotten and it seems Althouse did not blog) which I considered vapid and disagreed with anyhow, so he was already on my "bleh" list.

For in the end, we remain “one nation, under God, indivisible.” And we can only achieve “liberty and justice for all” if we live by that one rule at the heart of every religion, including Islam—that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. -Barack Obama

"[...T]hat one rule at the heart of every religion, including Islam" does not not, in fact, include Islam.

It is a measure of this man's narcissism that he felt he needed to give a statement on this AT ALL.

They say he has ALWAYS felt strongly but wanted to wait until local authorities made a decision.

So, let's get this straight. It was a local issue and therefore you said nothing because it was none of your business. But NOW THAT THE DECISION has been made, a statement is ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED because why again?

What an egotistical buffoon this guy is....Can he spend the next two years hiding away in Martha's Vineyard just to keep him away from the cameras? I think it would be extremely therapeutic - for everyone....

I think M7 has it right: we have freedom of religion, but they kill the infidel.

But Crack saying:"Anyone that suggests we have to act like ourselves, at all times, under any circumstances - when we are at war - is loopy. Get it through your heads: there are people trying to kill and/or defeat us."

Puts me in mind of how our liberties have been abridged with the Patriot Act and all the inconveniences that go along with it. So in the same manner, the Mosque builders should expect a little red tape while the source of the money is cleared up. Nothing personal; we all have to put up with incoveniences during wartime.

...On September 11, 2001, over 3,000 Americans, including 168 residents of our community in Suffolk County, were taken from us by the evil acts of Islamic extremists bent on destroying our freedoms. Amid the thick smoke and choking ashes of that fateful day, the St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church was reduced to dust.

Since 1922, St. Nicholas Church had stood as a quiet sanctuary of prayer and reflection amidst the tumultuous and bustling crossroads of commerce. For nine years the Port Authority of New York/New Jersey has used bureaucratic obstacles and false promises to hinder the rebuilding of the St. Nicholas Church. This must end and it must end now.

What an outrage that our government has put roadblocks in the path of its own citizens trying rebuild their beloved Church destroyed by Islamic extremists, while Saudi Arabia, a nation that prohibits people from even wearing a Cross or the Star of David, now provokes the families of those who lost loved ones by apparently funneling money to build a mosque at the same location.

I'm thinking of the issue of violence as an example. We don't want kids to use violence to get their way, to be thugs and criminals and to solve their normal childhood "problems" by hurting others... so we tell them to use their words and not to hit other children. And in the process we make violence into something it is not and we entirely destroy the notion of protecting those weaker than ourselves or defeating threats.

Are we doing that with the notion of religious tolerance? Is there so much of a push to be tolerant that we've noticed that we're in danger of becoming submissive wimps that won't stand up for anything or protect anyone? That is unacceptable, but it's not actually tolerance of bold religious practice, is it? It's more like suppression of everyone.

Lets make sure we're rejecting the right thing.

I don't think that the choice is between rejecting our Constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion or else accepting the religious pablum of a multi-culti orthodoxy that reduces all religions to the Golden Rule, if they actually contain it or not.

Peter, I don't think he'd have said anything particularly different (other than not using the term "But let me be clear") but he tended to be a little bit less shy about identifying the enemy so it might have come across a little bit differently.

Synova, I'm with you on the rejection of bland multiculturalism that seeks to paper over all the differences between different faiths.

But in the civil sphere, we go along with that mushy language, because it's not the role of government or government officials to be opining on theological issues.

We have principles. They are what define us. We abandon them at our peril.

By doing so, we play into the hands of our enemies.

Jeffrey Goldberg: One of the ways to prevent future Ground Zeroes is to encourage moderation within Islam, and to treat Muslim moderates differently than we treat Muslim extremists. The campaign against this mosque treats all Muslims as perpetrators. This is a terrible mistake, for moral and strategic reasons.

On the other hand I don't think that Goldberg's suggestion of the provocation Sarah Palin would be, and resultant clash of civilizations if she were president, is valid.

I've long held the opinion that it takes a true believer to understand a true believer. I would feel more secure, not less, to have someone who understood people who actually, for real, believe in God and eternal consequences dealing with people who might make decisions that seem irrational to someone without that understanding.

"We must never forget those who we lost so tragically on 9/11, and we must always honor those who have led our response to that attack – from the firefighters who charged up smoke-filled staircases, to our troops who are serving in Afghanistan today. And let us always remember who we are fighting against, and what we are fighting for. Our enemies respect no freedom of religion. Al Qaeda’s cause is not Islam – it is a gross distortion of Islam. These are not religious leaders – these are terrorists who murder innocent men, women and children. In fact, al Qaeda has killed more Muslims than people of any other religion – and that list of victims includes innocent Muslims who were killed on 9/11.

That is who we are fighting against. And the reason that we will win this fight is not simply the strength of our arms – it is the strength of our values. The democracy that we uphold. The freedoms that we cherish. The laws that we apply without regard to race or religion; wealth or status. Our capacity to show not merely tolerance, but respect to those who are different from us – a way of life that stands in stark contrast to the nihilism of those who attacked us on that September morning, and who continue to plot against us today.

In my inaugural address, I said that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus — and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth. That diversity can bring difficult debates. Indeed, past eras have seen controversies about the construction of synagogues or Catholic churches. But time and again, the American people have demonstrated that we can work through these issues, stay true to our core values, and emerge stronger for it. So it must be – and will be – today."

The entire speech sounds exactly like something Bush would have given.

"State Department officials say Rauf is not supposed to do any fundraising during his taxpayer-sponsored program. But this is an imam whose projects, in order to roll ahead, now entail raising $100 million. Where exactly does he now expect to get the money? What, if anything, has he been discussing about this with his overseas contacts? And when does he plan to make himself available to start answering questions?"

If our government is donating the money to enable the rest of the money to be raised, that amounts to sponsorship of the mosque, and that looks like a church-state violation.

Oh, and the resident liberal muslim-lovers here have done a great job. They have never met a hate-filled, child-raping, gay-hanging, woman-stoning, freedom-denying theocracy they didn't love. I hope your islamic oppressors treat you better than the dreaded conservatives did.

What happened to the leftist "Freedom from religion" meme? Can't we get some of that about now?

It is an atheist meme, not a leftist one. And since it applies to government establishment of religion, it doesn't apply here. The mosque is being built with private funds on private land, which makes it irritating but not illegal.

Once you get to know The Zero, he becomes awfully predictable; also interesting that he let Bloomie articulate the position first.

Synova said...He's good at not expressing opinions at all. Quite. He's more into inferences.

It's the art of voting, "Present".

Ground Zero is not "hallowed" ground. It is not sacred. It's a place where a horrible thing happened and as such it has more or less the same meaning (times 3000+) as the roadside memorial to the victim of a drunk driver, or if I want to make certain no one mistakes that remark for a lack of understanding of the *intent* of the attack, no more than the roadside memorial of the deputy that was murdered trying to apprehend someone.

Hallowed... what... are the souls of the people murdered there attached to that place?

We were attacked there. Think USS Arizona (another place where they had no chance to fight back) rather than Gettysburg - often referred to as hallowed ground.

I am surprised that Ann didn't say "this is the first amendment" get over it. End of discussion.

If there is a call for "bad taste" or "out of keeping" whatever, it doesn't have anything to do with the right to practice religion and the government's absolute ban from getting involved in it one way or another.

If hallowed means holy (which is one meaning) and ground zero is "holy ground" (proclaimed holy by whom"? and under what possible authority) whouldn't we be even better served to forbid any "for profit" venture being built and operated - like an office tower for moneylenders perhaps?? - on a holy site?

The Muslim Center has only one purpose. The same purpose that Van Gogh's assasin accomplished by pinning a victory proclamation to Theo's dead chest with the knife thru his heart that had been uswed to cut off his head for speaking truth to Islamic lies.

peter hoh said... Of those critical of Obama, please answer me this: What would Bush have said or done differently?============No, Bush, who looks like a failed President - was also big on Open Borders and preaching about The Religion of Peace. Both Obama and Bush are morons that think Islam and Democracy are generally compatable, and nation-building and tolerance are the way to go.

*****************edutcher to Synvova's Hallowed... what... are the souls of the people murdered there attached to that place?

"We were attacked there. Think USS Arizona (another place where they had no chance to fight back) rather than Gettysburg - often referred to as hallowed ground."

Somewhere in the 19th Century spiritualism movement, the rather unique American notion arose that we needed to go past putting up a memorial and having services at the site of lots of people killed to publicly preaching that the soil was rendered Holy by victimhood.

In Europe and Asia, as with America, there are plenty of battlefield and war memorials - but an absence of an idea that cities once blasted in war, plane crash sites, and scenes of mass murder - now are consecrated soil.

It is considered a rather strange American fetish, even a bit repellant.

2. That even in a social setting Obama can't say anything nice about the Bush... Even though Bush held these dinners for 8 years, (I saw no Clinton event) Obama snarked, "Here at the White House, we have a tradition of hosting iftars that goes back several ye"

3. They now have LCDRs in the USMC :) at least 1 anyway: Lt. Commander Abuhena Saifulislam, U.S. Marine Corps

4. why does the incompetent WH Social Secretary list a spouse in front of all the Diplomats?

7M, I thought it would be by data of station, isn't that the general rule? instead, first on the list is: Mrs. Shamim Jawad, Spouse, Embassy of Afghanistan. And don't tell me it's alphabetical, can Pakistan isn't in the alphabet after Saudi Arabia

He has no attachment or allegiance to this country, which was the basis of the rationale to make sure that the POTUS is a Natural Born Citizen, i.e. born in the US of US citizen parents. The founderswarning that the POTUS and VP be insulated from foreign influence is being ignored, to our detriment.

The Muslims who want to build their expression of triumphalism at their battlefield have the right to do it under the law.

But Americans who find this utterly tasteless and massively offensive have the right to bring continual pressure to bear on the perpetrators of this repugnance, in exercise of their very same rights.

Picket lines in front of the mosque entrance? Why not. In fact, why not do anything that a union would do, including all the kinds of union violence that police departments tacitly protect as expressions of First Amendment rights -- slash tires, vandalize property, beat people up, other forms of intimidation. If it's allowable for the SEIU, it ought to be okay for mosque protesters too.

When the livid child, son or brother of one of those massacred on 9/11 straps a bomb on and goes jihad on that mosque, we Americans will all be stained with that act of retribution. Nobody has the courage to prevent that from happening.

The Government tells EVERYONE where and when and what they can build, everybody knows that. Try to erect anything bigger than a shed without Gov't approval and you'll see what I mean. This "Cordoba Institute" mosque is meant to memorialize the blow in the cause of Islam that was struck on 9/11. That's just the reality. That Obama, who supposedly loathes "Bible clingers" to the point of distraction, is in favor of this grand devotional effort is bizarre. Hopefully, this stand of his will be quietly reversed just like closing Gitmo, trying KSM in NYC, gutting the Patriot Act, etc. all were.Whatever happens, this should knock a few more percentage points off Barry's approval numbers.

Synova, very nicely said. And Quayle, I think your associated analogy is excellent. I'm likely going to be using that.

Crack, I think your experiences are immensely helpful to these sorts of conversation. When I hear "soft and cuddly" I don't think of this as a positive. Soft and cuddly allows monsters into the midst, and monsters take decided advantage of the over-open minded.

It is not, I think, an accident that Nazi Germany happened after 100 years of increasing liberalizing theology in Germany, in which the whole basis of Christian faith was left an empty shell, to be replaced by a vaguely Christian humanism.

Tolerance of the fluffiness of evil really is only tolerance of the powerful and the malicious. Victims abound, even as they're drawn in by the hope of eventually becoming some of the enlightened.

__________________________

From this speech, and the helpful comparison to Lincoln, I wonder how Obama would have responded to Gettysburg. The people, certainly, have the right to self-government, after all. And those in the South have certainly proven to be good Americans, with a distinct culture. But, I suspect that then and now people would think a Southern Heritage Center at Gettysburg would be a fairly unsuitable.

This whole argument that it's an argument of freedom of religion is a total red herring. Because 9/11 occured 9 years ago, and I'd imagine that mosques were built in that time. No mosques were closed and no muslims were denied the right to prey anywhere, even at the height of 9/11. In fact, despite the fact taht Bush was accused of trying to start a new crusades,he CONSTANTLY said this was not a war against Islam.The issue is where the mosque is placed, period. Putting the mosque in the middle of Ground Zero is insensitive to many. If you listen to those arguing against the mosque, be they Peter King, or Gov. Patterson, they are simply saying don't build it inside of Ground Zero. Both have suggested it simply be moved out of that area and there is no problem.And noone is saying they CAN"t build the mosque. It is private property. The argument is they SHOULDN'T where they're proposing to.

I think you probably saw it, but the "hallowed ground" also picks up Krathammer's recent column where he used and defined Lincoln's idea, which is one of the most distinguished and widely read anti-mosque statements.

I wonder if Obama sat down at some point in his twenties and templated out how he was going to speak or if it just came naturally over the course of decades as he spewed forth. It's the SAME FUCKING FORMULATION EVERYTIME.

The thing about Rauf that should raise red flags with people is his tendency, when someone wants him to give a straight answer on something, to say, "I'm trying to build bridges...", and then change the subject.

The Drill SGT said...FWIW,

WWII ended 65 years ago today.

Absent Companions!

It's worth a lot, Sergeant!

And, for those who think that second A-bomb was unnecessary and criminal, a little note from This Day in History from strategypage:

1945 Tokyo: Attempted coup by the Imperial Guard is put down with bloodshed.

peter hoh said...You really think that either of the Bushes would have advocated against this mosque?

In keeping with the office, they would have kept their public mouths shut.

Not so with Obama, whose ultimate goal is to destroy Wall Street, thus capitalism. The proposed mosque amounts to nothing less than Mecca West, with all the attending pilgrimages - certainly not a place conducive to a Morgan Stanley or Cantor Fitzgerald.

I say we tear down the site of the Stonewall Inn and put in a mosque. Anyone with me?

Oh wait... that cannot happen. BECAUSE WE HAVE HALLOWED THE GROUND:

In June 1999, through the efforts of the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation and the Organization of Lesbian and Gay Architects and Designers, the area including Stonewall was listed on the National Register of Historic Places for its historic significance to gay and lesbian history. The area delineated included the Stonewall Inn, Christopher Park, and portions of surrounding streets and sidewalks. The area was declared a National Historic Landmark in February 2000.

@ Peter Hoh 1:41 AM it's not the role of government or government officials to be opining on theological issues.

Peter, make sure Imam Faisal gets the memo.

Faisal it is clear an Islamic state can be established in more than just a single form or mold. It can be established through a kingdom or a democracy. The important issue is to establish the general fundamentals of Sharia that are required to govern.

In its base form Islam is a theocracy which, as it inhabits whatever political bodies it can, works to remake them in its image.

"What We Do" (Cordoba Initiative site) The Sharia Index -- to measure the "Islamicity" of a state.

(The Sharia Index was created using the input of an Iranian leader whose picture and name have now been deleted from the Cordoba site.)

"You really think that either of the Bushes would have advocated against this mosque?"

No, I don't.

While GWB was nice nice, he had a strong hand. Did he deal with Faisal -- probably yes ... and CAIR was on his doorstep as soon as he got back to the White House. By demonizing Daniel Pipes they were able to have face time for a couple years. I think. They seem to be less prominent in Official Washington, though they yak a lot. (As The Drill Sgt noted, they do not seem to be represented on the dinner list.)

As the dirty laundry comes out (and it will) the State Departments funding Faisal's good will cross cultural trips which are not to be fund raisers (hahahah) will quietly cease.

I do not think the Bushes would have advocated against the mosque. (First Amendment and all that.)

But neither do I think they would have fallen all over themselves advocating FOR the mosque, much less in the venue of a Ramadan dinner.

Obama was trying for Brownie points with his Muslim audience, or practicing taqiyyah.

Either way he thinks saying words are enough. Not here. Not now. Not when more than half of America has been woken up with a slap the side of the head.

He's a complete idiot if he, who supposedly knows *about* Islam, thinks what he said is true.

"Of course I believe freedom of _______ is one of our most fundamental rights and values. But freedom of _______ must be exercised with maturity, judgment, and sensitivity toward the feelings and beliefs of our fellow citizens, and not abused in the service of insult and provocation."

It would be nice to just once see our butt-kissing pundits and politicos wag their sanctimonious little fingers at insensitive Muslims behaving obnoxiously.

peter hoh: Synova, I'm with you on the rejection of bland multiculturalism that seeks to paper over all the differences between different faiths.

Not really. If you rule it out of bounds even to speculate that any religion could be in conflict with a civil ethos of religious tolerance, and take it as an unexamined axiom that civic ideals derived from a specific human cultural tradition can be universally applied and accepted, then you believe in a "bland multiculturalism". In the real world of non-bland multiculturalism, differences actually matter.

"Are you guys also opposed to the idea of a memorial at Ground Zero? Why memorialize how Muslims kicked our asses?"

Some people thought that the best thing would be to rebuild, to not be defeated.

There is also value in reminding people that evil exists in the world.

The oppression museum idea was obscene, better nothing at all than that.

A memorial is appropriate but lord almighty did people get ridiculous about it. I haven't looked up what the current plans are, but I think something about a garden and reflecting pool? That seems nice.

"The idea of discriminating against a particular religion offends our fundamental values."

The idea of discriminating against women by all Muslims offends my fundamental values. Freedom of religion should not mean freedom to be oppressive to 50% of the world's population. When Islam respects other religions and stops oppressing women, we can start discussing a mosque anywhere near Ground Zero.

Anglelyne writes: If you rule it out of bounds even to speculate that any religion could be in conflict with a civil ethos of religious tolerance, and take it as an unexamined axiom that civic ideals derived from a specific human cultural tradition can be universally applied and accepted, then you believe in a "bland multiculturalism".

The idea of discriminating against women by all Muslims offends my fundamental values. Freedom of religion should not mean freedom to be oppressive to 50% of the world's population. When Islam respects other religions and stops oppressing women, we can start discussing a mosque anywhere near Ground Zero.

Seven Machos wrote:To which I can only respond: Yes. No shit. That's what makes us so awesome and them so shitty. That's freedom.

And yet we seem to be the ones that constantly have to kowtow or apologize. We have to accomodate the wishes of those who wish to build a mosque in ground zero, those wishing to build a mosque don't have to accomodate those who are offended by the idea.We have to accomodate them so much that we can't even rebuild things that were destroyed on the grounds of religious freedom, but have to build something that was never there before, that rewards the religion of those who attacked us, and gives them a victory on many fronts.They can hate us for our policies, and libs constantly bring up said policies as the reason to understand their hatred us, yet we never can hate their policies, or our actions are never viewed as inspired by their policies. If you want to say that they are shitty, that's your perogative, but then again, if that's the case why the need to get them to like us so much?And are Muslims denied the right to pray or build mosques in the US now? Even during 9/11? So how is this a religious rights issue? Do we owe muslims some extra degree of appreciation for the wrongs done to them in this country?

Everybody's a dhimmi-expert on Islam these days. It must be next on the Tea Party reading list, right after Alinsky.

Everyone that is except the libs, who consistently show a lack of understanding of all things Islam. Then agian, considering their usual role is as the useful idiot and anti american agitprop ally for any tin pot dictatorship that comes along, it's perhaps understandable. they simply don't understand the concept of evil, unless it's America's or Israel's.

Everybody's a dhimmi-expert on Islam these days. It must be next on the Tea Party reading list, right after Alinsky.

And if the left is not an expert on dhimi's and Islam then how are they saying that Islam is a religion of peace? They may be wrong or right in their assertions, but it sounds like you are suggesting that they are wilfully ignornant on the subject.As to Alinsky being on the reading list. Maybe it's good to read up on the philosophies of those leading us. I'm sure you held Sarah Palin to account for not knowing what the Bush doctrine meant, you think we shouldn't know about Rules for Radicals?

Yes he did. By not addressing it and saying he thought it was inappropriate (while giving a speech on the first amendment and freedom), the reasonable inference is he does not oppose it. In fact, the reasonable inference is you are against American values if you oppose it.

While I liked that technique by Otter in Animal House...Mr. President you are no Otter.

It's close enough. Gov Patterson offered to move the mosque a little bit away from the area so as to not cause controversy. What's wrong with that suggestion?

And we are blocking the rebuilding of the Greek Orthodox church building in order to accommodate the Cordoba project?

Really?

I'm sure it's not literally an either or proposition. However, for all the talk of religious freedom, I don't hear libs in particular arguing how we have to rebuild a church that was destroyed in the attack. Libs seem to have invested themselves in this mosque being built as close to ground zero as possible. They've thrown up complete straw men arguments about religious freedom, which are quite cute considering Muslims have never been denied access to prayer in this country, nor have they been denied the ability to build mosques,and in fact those criticizing this have even offered alternate locations to build said mosque. Yet for al the zeal about building the mosque there is a complete lack of zeal about rebuilding a church that was destroyed int he attack. Not to say we have to champion that cuase or that it's a priority to rebuild said church. but it's very funny to see the libs (primarly) reaction to this in both cases. It almost sounds like the left is using this as a political tool to try to paint their enemies as being against religious freedoms for electoral purposes.Yet seriously, considering the amount of religious intolerance direted towards christianity by the left, I have to wonder if you're making the intolerance charge as some ironic stance or as satire.

Almost Ali, while not conclusive, here's some evidence for my claim that Bush would have made a similar statement.

Michael Gerson, a speech writer for George W. Bush, said this:

An enormously complex and emotional issue -- but ultimately the right thing to do. A president is president for every citizen, including every Muslim citizen. Obama is correct that the way to marginalize radicalism is to respect the best traditions of Islam and protect the religious liberty of Muslim Americans. It is radicals who imagine an American war on Islam. But our conflict is with the radicals alone.

I missed those videos of Jews sawing the heads off of captives with dull knives. Probably all those Jews in the media, hiding the truth from us. If you or Cedarford could post a link to these videos, please do.

peter hoh: [Looks like it's pick on peter Sunday for Angleyne.]: Almost Ali, while not conclusive, here's some evidence for my claim that Bush would have made a similar statement.

Yes, I agree. Bush would have said something equally if not more inane and tone-deaf than Obama. Is there some reason why this pointless little exercise in tu-quoque-ing should be of interest to anyone but moronic party hacks?

I think it would be worth it just to have Gutfeld's "Outfidels" lunch-counter and gay bar constructed nearby.

Him suggesting that was worth it, just to get the official response from the mosque people about how offending sensibilities doesn't promote bridge building or whatever. But when he talked about what he was thinking of for the bar he sounded like he sincerely wanted to make it a place where Muslims would be comfortable.

The answer to speech is more speech. We tend to want to repress anything raucous or dynamic or fractious, and that's too bad.

The fact that you can find people who don't want any mosques built does not mean that any objection to THIS particular mosque being built means that those objecting hold the same views. if you do a google map of mosques in NYC you'll see that there are already dozens of mosques, none of which were torn down at any time from 9/11 to present. And some of which may have been built since then for all I know. And during that time no Muslim has been denied the ability to pray at those mosques. Nor has Peter King Or Gov Patterson suggested that said mosques should not be there, or that muslims shouldn't be allowed to pray. Do you really think King is against this because of religious intolerance? Or do you think that Palin said peaceful muslims understand this is a strike at the heart or whatever it was that she said because they wanted to build a mosque anywhere in the country? OR was it because of the location proposed?

"Other made up assertions: Liberals seem invested in making sure this mosque is built as close to Ground Zero as possible.

Show me one example of a liberal who thinks that the Cordoba mosque should be built closer to Ground Zero than currently proposed."

It's close enough to ground zero as it is. So, if libs don't want it literally in the crater of 6WTC then perhaps that should be commmended (/sarc). Are you denying its in the vicinity of the World Trade Center? Also, this is still a fresh wound, so fresh that despite the years have passed, there is still nothing there that replaced the WTC, so for all intents and purposes it's in it's unformed state. Perhaps building a mosque that caters specifically to muslims when we have yet to build the towers, might be viewed as misplaced priorities?But are those proposing this not aware that building a mosque right at the heart of the WTC might be viewed as a provocative act, or one that smacks of being slightly intolerant? Even if you think it's the other side making it an issue, shouldn't the tolerance of those proposing the location take that into consideration and act accordingly? If a lot of people are hurt and insulted when it's proposed to be built in one space but they would not be so hurt and insulted if it were built somewhere else, why, if they are seeking to build bridges by building this would they not pick the location that was less controversial?and that doesn't even address where the money is coming from and who is funding this mosque etc.

Why not have moslems donate money for a memorial rather than a mosque. Why not have moslems donate money to build a church, the church that was destroyed. or a firehouse, considering all the firemen that died, or a synegogue? Or propose to build a 9/11 memorial somewhere in the middle east.

As was asked in the article below:Do they not understand that building a mosque at Ground Zero is equivalent to permitting a Serbian Orthodox church near the killing fields of Srebrenica where 8,000 Muslim men and boys were slaughtered?

"Perhaps building a mosque that caters specifically to muslims when we have yet to build the towers"

As opposed to a mosque that caters specifically to Christians?

And the truth is, it is a community center that caters to Manhattanites, with a mosque that caters to Muslims (shocker, I know, a religious house of worship that caters to that religion.)

And for all the talk about moving to another location - is anyone offering to pay the costs of such a move? They've already sunk in at least $4.85 million (the purchase price of the building). You have another abandoned downtown Manhattan building that you're willing to hand over to them?

We're talking about the site of the WTC that was brought down by a sect of Islam that is at war with the US. Why are we catering to muslims at this particular location?We did they plunk down money for this particular building knowing the location in the first place? They didn't think it might be considered provocative?Also, why not simply make a community center then and leave the mosque out of it completely? and say it was dedicated to the city by peaceloving muslims who are opposed to violent jihad? And I can't understand the obtuseness for the degree to which this might offend considering there is outrage (usually from the left) directed when people simply hang confederate flags in their windows on a college campus.

"I just find it hard to believe that a Muslim sincerely interested in "building bridges" with other Americans would choose to site his mega-mosque at this particular location.

Call me a cynic, I guess."

My guess? I'm no expert on Manhattan real estate, but I'm guessing that the prospect of finding an entire building for sale in this area of Manhattan, that will sell at a price of $4.85 million, that you can tear down and rebuild without having to worry about current tenants (since there are none) would be a rather tricky prospect.

Those who promote "Miss Me yet?" can't escape that on this, Obama is walking the same line that Bush walked.

So then which one is the hypocrite?

BHO is always attacking the former president. This is not a banana republic. Obama is disrespectful and childish.

Bush could easily have said *some* of what Obama said ... but BHO giving us the DB quote and advocating for something he -- let me be clear -- denied having the place to take a side on before this is just some more disgusting schmooze.

I knew that President Obama would never represent my interests or those of my family and friends. I am just trying to endure his disastrous tenure with good grace.

I would expect nothing less than his complicity if not joy in sticking a thumb in the eye of those who were lost on 911. We have no standing in Barack Obama’s view of who he has to represent as President of all the people.

"But his comments Friday night were widely interpreted as an endorsement of plans to build a mosque a few blocks away from where nearly 3,000 Americans perished at the hands of Islamic terrorists on 9/11 – an interpretation the White House hadn't disputed, up until Obama’s comments in Florida."

The President has no understanding of the emotions that this issue engenders. He is as usual clueless if consistent in throwing in with the enemies of our nation. I am surprised that he did not bow to them.

Make no mistake about it; the people behind this abomination are directly funded by the same sources and ideology that led to the murders of 3000 people.

Rose did not "make things up." She linked to a piece by George Demos, a Congressional candidate for NY District One. He wrote it.

While I agree it is not the "same location" I do believe part of the landing gear from one of the WTC plane bombs ended up on the the "mosque" / BCF property. So yes, it is, technically, part of the WTC attack site.

And as per Rose and Mr. Demos, why doesn't the Port Authority help the St. Nicholas Congregation get their church rebuilt by giving them permission? Some of their members probably have died by now. Waiting for the rest to go so they don't have to be bothered?

peter hoh said...Michael Gerson, a speech writer for George W. Bush, said this:

Bush wouldn't have argued for or against. It's counterproductive to state the obvious on such a divisive issue.

Which brings us to Obama's motive, since there aren't enough Muslims in lower Manhattan to fill a Winnebago.

It comes down to financing, that is, generating enough money from legitimate, domestic sources - which is exactly why Obama decided to lobby on the mosque's behalf. Now even George Soros can become an honorary Muslim. And any other Liberal looking to stick it to America. I expect many universities will be holding pledge drives. And if that falls short, Barney & Friends figuring out a way to get Fannie and Freddie involved - you know, letting us taxpayers underwrite the construction.

This project is being financed by the same forces and ideology that led to the attacks. That is why the builders refuse to divulge who has given them the seed money to begin their fund raising. They are adamant in refusing to give up this information since it must be dirty money.

Whatever. It's hard to have a serious conversation about this when there are so many exaggerations/misrepresentations.

The issues surrounding the rebuilding of St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church have nothing to do with the Cordoba project. This is another red herring, unless you have some facts that show otherwise.

The Port Authority recognizes the congregation's right to rebuild in their original location. The Port Authority offered the congregation nearby land and $20,000,000 for the construction of a new sanctuary, provided it was done in accordance with the plans the PA had for the area.

That's a pretty big carrot, but the church rejected it, and negotiations broke down, leaving the project in limbo. As best I can tell, St. Nicholas still has the right to rebuild where their original church stood.

You are really a foolish man peter. If you think the donorslist to the Bush Library have anything to do with this. Seriously?

You mock the seriousness of this issue and what it means to the people who lost family in 911.

I get it. You are like the President. It means nothing to you but a chance to score political points. I hope you never are in a position to mourn someone who was murdered by fanatical Islamic terrorism.

There is no doubt in my mind that this is funded by the same sources that finance terrorists. That is why they have refused to release any information. They are creating a separate 501c charity for future fund raising where they will be forced to reveal their sources. But the original sources are shrouded in mystery and deceit. It is dirty money and if it came to light even so foolish and politically correct a mark as President Obama or Nanny Bloomberg would be forced to object to this abomination.

But they will not press for this information because they know it will blow up in their face.

Next time you're in lower Manhattan, look for yourself. Because if you want to find enough Muslims to fill your Winnebago, you'll have to visit Union City (NJ), Queens, or Yonkers.

Also in the barns of NYC cab companies, because chances are that if you hail a taxi anywhere in New York, your driver will be from Syria, Pakistan, or Afghanistan. And if you encourage them, they'll be happy to tell you all the things they hate about America and Americans.

Me, I especially enjoy taking cabs to the airport(s), especially JFK. Because the shortest route (if you know it) from lower Manhattan takes us along Atlantic Avenue in Brooklyn - where I insist that we stop at the local White Castle for "ham-burgers." Where they, the drivers, mumble militant passages from their Koran. In tongue, of course.

But I'm a rather large person, so I wouldn't recommend this routine to average pilgrim. No, just sit back and let'em run you all over the BQE. Till you miss your plane. Still hungry.

"What President Obama achieved in endorsing the mosque’s construction is to change what it is all about. Prior to his endorsement the mosque controversy might have been about religion or the culture wars. It might even have been about the War on Terror. What the President’s words have done — apart from making it all about him — is transform it into a referendum on whether a country can long rely on a elite that doesn’t even remotely “get it” the way they do."

I didn't think it was possible for Obama to lose supporters at a faster clip than in the last 18 months, but this gaffe is a doozy. Even now, as he attempts to back pedal out of the stupid-swamp, he's pissing off hordes of his 2008 voters.

If this farrago results in his approval numbers hitting the 30's, beers are on me.

Trooper, I'm not suggesting that the donor lists have any names in common.

I'm going after your suggestion that secret donors proves that the money is dirty.

FWIW, I would approve efforts to figure out who gave money to the Cordoba project. If it is dirty money, that should be made known.

You know it wouldn't take that much effort to figure out where they money is coming from.If for example, they simply told us.I do love though how the left accused Bush of being in league with the Saudis based on some loose affiliotions and then accused him of going to war for oil so he could enrich himself and his buddies. And how he was protecting the Saudis on the day of 9/11 in letting them fly out of ny around the time of the WTC attack because of some nefarious purposes.

For example, here;s a link that mentions the various nefarious connections suggesting Bush was in league with the Saudis Al Qaeda and various other organizations based on the most tenous of links:

Yet, suddenly the left is entirely uncurious about secret donors. I guess when the job isn't about libeling BUsh with war crimes charges, digging into an organizations ties isn't that big a deal. We got a lot about how Bush was in league with Saudis, yet how do we know that this particular imam is not tied to Hamas or the Saudis? Wouldn't that be hilarious if you charged Bush with deliberately siding with the Saudis, yet it was Saudi money that was key to getting this mosque off the ground? Or maybe it's Hamas money? By the way I do think that Bush would have said that this mosque shouldn't have been built, but he WOULD have still suggested that Islam was a religion of peace and tried to do an outreach to that community. Beause I remember for example the Dubai ports incident when he was considering allowing arabs from Dubai who handle shipping around the world to handle our ports in NYC. And while there was some republican opposition a lot of support was from people like Rush Limbaugh and much of the opposition was from people like Chuck Shumer, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama who demagogued the crap out of it, implying that arabs from the UAE were a threat to our national security, despite the fact that this company was an international company, handled ports around the world, was not tied to terrorists and despite the fact that the UAE was not part of the 9/11 attacks. Further they then said Bush wasn't doing enough to protect our ports and demanded completely unrealistic inspections of all the cargo coming in and out of our ports. (which I guess the dems forgot all about because Obama is not as we speak calling for refoming our port security). So libs have no problem demagoging muslims when they seek to gain power, and have no problem playing on the fears about the bogeyman terrrorist attacks when it comes to attacks on Bush. just as right after 9/11 RIchard Clarke was the lefts darliing declaring Bush should have realized that AL Qaeda was the biggest threat we faced. once engaged in a war in Afghanistan it turned into "Is the terrorist threat really that bad? More people die in car accidents every year and Bush is hyping the threat">And now they demagogue their opponents for hating muslims and denying religious freedom for simply not wanting a mosque to be built on the rubble of the WTC, or its immediate neighborhood,and questioning where the money is coming from.How about applying some of that same intellectual vigor to research this particular imam as your side did to research Bush and his nefarious Saudi connections?